Kingdom of Priests

Francis Collins Mangles Maimonides — Following Leon Wieseltier?

When I complained a couple of days ago about people who misrepresent Maimonides as a proto-Darwinist, then cited a newish biography by Joel Kraemer on the subject as solid evidence that Maimonides would be an intelligent-design advocate and that the issue was for him the most important of philosophical and scientific questions, reader Anderson complained in turn that I was attacking a straw man:

You should be able to link to several examples of people making this or a very similar argument. You shouldn’t have to create a straw-man version of it.

Basically, if you look at Judaism and Islam, you will find a range of views about origin. Certainly in Judaism, conservative and reform Jews are generally accepting of evolution, and a lot of Orthodox Jews are as well. Maimonides is often cited here as a reason to assume that if you have a conflict between science and the Torah, there’s been an error and a misinterpretation, not that science is evil.

Advertisement

There you have it. According to Maimonides, our understanding of Torah must yield before anything scientists happen to say at a given moment.

I believe this egregious misunderstanding, resulting from a sloppy reading of a chapter in the Guide of the Perplexed (2:25), was either originated or decisively advanced several years ago by Leon Wieseltier in The New Republic.

Just to get it over with, from earlier posts:Not everyone who believes in evolution is an atheist. And theistic evolutionists believe in “the idea of an orderly universe governed by laws of a cosmic intelligence” just as much as IDers, or for that matter, young-Earthers, do! The way in which that intelligence works in the cosmos is the point of disagreement, not that it does so. Why can’t you seem to grasp that?
David, in his post on Francis Collins: “On the other hand, that life has an evolutionary history including billions of years of change — that is unassailable as science and unobjectionable to me as a Jew.” Please explain to me how this is one whit different from theistic evolution. David, you said on that same post that you’d like to see someone debate Collins or ask him some pointed questions; yet you resolutely avoid all such questions and attempts at debate here. This one, which seems to me a statement of what almost anyone would refer to as theistic evolution, is especially egregious. I think I’m going to re-post it on every thread, if that’s what it takes to get you to speak to it. I mean, really!
Also, I’m still waiting to hear you speak to the issues of randomness and alien intelligence vis-à-vis the “image of god”.

Collins as quoted by David: Maimonides is often cited here as a reason to assume that if you have a conflict between science and the Torah, there’s been an error and a misinterpretation, not that science is evil.
Read Rambam’s discussion of the incorporeality of God. Scripture clearly attributes a body to God. This is also clearly against reason. Maimonides goes on to argue that God is not corporeal.
From Interpreting Maimonides, by Marvin Fox, p. 40, courtesy of this site:
“For Maimonides, however, the matter [of God’s incorporeality] can be settled finally and definitively only by an appeal to reason. His guiding rule is that what reason finds incorrect and unacceptable cannot be the meaning of Scripture, no matter what it appears to say. In a move not unlike that of Zeno and the whole classical rationalist tradition, he in effect asserts that what reason finds to be impossible cannot be the case in Scriptural reality.” (emphasis added)
From the Amazon site, regarding the author: “Marvin Fox is Philip W. Lown Professor Emeritus of Jewish Philosophy at Brandeis University and professor of philosophy and religion at Boston University.” Thus, I assume he knows what he’s talking about!
Once again, from The Guide for the Perplexed, M. Friedman translation, 2:25, emphasis added:
“If, however, we accepted the Eternity of the Universe in accordance with the second of the theories which we have expounded above (ch. xxiii.), and assumed, with Plato, that the heavens are likewise transient, we should not be in opposition to the fundamental principles of our religion; this theory would not imply the rejection of miracles, but, on the contrary, would admit them as possible. The Scriptural text might have been explained accordingly, and many expressions might have been found in the Bible and in other writings that would confirm and support this theory. But there is no necessity for this expedient, so long as the theory has not been proved. As there is no proof sufficient to convince us, this theory need not be taken into consideration, nor the other one; we take the text of the Bible literally, and say that it teaches us a truth which we cannot prove; and the miracles are evidence for the correctness of our view.”
He’s saying that an eternal universe per se is not a problem, only the Aristotelian verson of it–the Platonic version is OK. He goes with the Scriptural version of creation since an eternal cosmos can’t be proved, but it is clear that he’s saying that if it could be proved it can be reconciled with Scripture.
Finally, I think that LVQ put it quite well in the last thread, and that this is an anemic non-response. Are you ever actually going to discuss what the Rambam actually said, or are you going to keep throwing out one-line, non-contextualized, third-party quotes, which are, in fact, straw men?

Perhaps Maimonides should be understood as counseling honesty.
If you do that, well, you’re going to be accepting evolutionary theory, not the ad hominem-spewing nonsense of ID.
As one not especially concerned about idle speculations about whether or not Jefferson or Maimonides would accept evolutionary theory had they actually known it, though, I really don’t see how the Collins quote supplies even one example, let alone the several that Anderson requested, of someone supposed to be misrepresenting Maimonides as a proto-“Darwinist” (can you believe that David had the gall to whine about Meyer being called a creationist at Coyne’s blog? Well, yes you can, because he seems ready to expose his hypocrisy at the drop of a hat).
Collins may or may not be right in his statement (there was a dispute over whether “a lot of Orthodox Jews are as well” are accepting of evolution), but his only claim was that Maimonides is “often cited” for his statement regarding Jewish acceptance of evolution. It wasn’t “several examples” of anyone doing so, even if it tends to back up Klinghoffer’s original assertion.
What I’m wondering is if David understand plurals, what examples actually are, or what Collins actually meant by saying “Maimonides is often cited here…”.
Does ID entail misunderstanding everything, or can it be limited to misunderstanding and misrepresenting science?
Glen Davidsonhttp://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Glen: As one not especially concerned about idle speculations about whether or not Jefferson or Maimonides would accept evolutionary theory had they actually known it, though, I really don’t see how the Collins quote supplies even one example, let alone the several that Anderson requested, of someone supposed to be misrepresenting Maimonides as a proto-“Darwinist”
That’s because Collins’s quote doesn’t supply such an example. But we both knew that!
Some thoughts:
1. This issue should be argued on the science, which David won’t do. However, in this case he seems to be arguing that Maimonides said that reason (aka “science”) must defer to religion when the two conflict. Several of us have pointed out that the Rambam says no such thing, and in fact clearly teaches the opposite, that is, that faith must be interpreted differently if it conflicts with reason, since reason cannot be rejected. This is what David is at pains to deny.
2. The way to make such an argument is to do one of two things. One, quote Maimonides extensively, accurately, and in context to build one’s argument. Two, find out the opinions of relevant authorities on Maimonides. The latter is weaker, since arguments from authority are problematic, but since none of us is omniscient, we often need to see what recognized authorities say. The important thing is that the authority be an expert in the relevant area. If I’m arguing about 15th Century Korean history, for example, it’s not enough for me to cite a historian, or even a historian from Korea–I’d better cite an expert in Medieval Korean history!
3. David fails both of these tests. He has never yet quoted more than a sentence or two from Guide for the Perplexed whereas I have cited entire paragraphs. He has made no attempt to make any kind of systematic arguments based on what Rambam says, and the quotes he has given leave out important context, as I’ve shown.
As to authorities, well, he cites the biographer Kraemer, who is professor of “Jewish Studies in the Divinity School, the Committees on Jewish Studies and on Social Thought, and the Center for Middle Eastern Studies” (you can read details here–notice no mention of expertise in Medieval philosophy), whereas I cited Marvin Fox, professor of Jewish Philosophy at Brandeis University and professor of philosophy and religion at Boston University. Now, saying “my guy against yours” isn’t really the right way to argue, but of these two, whom are you going to trust to understand Maimonides’ philosophy and accurately represent it, really?
4. Finally, I point out that David resolutely refuses to acknowledge, let alone respond to, the questions I’ve been re-posting. This is especially irritating since the questions deal with theology and philosophy, not science! David is always saying he’s no scientist, but wants to look at the religious issues, but then he won’t even fight on what he claims is his own turf!Does ID entail misunderstanding everything, or can it be limited to misunderstanding and misrepresenting science?
I think the answer is shaping up as “everything, no exceptions”!

Right, David, pointing out your rhetorical tactics is now a “personal attack”.
Going to ban me the next time I ask why you distorted a quote?
Going to ban Turmarion, Glen Davidson, and Olorin too?
Other commenters had time to read my post, David, and can judge for themselves my comment was “abusive”

David Klinghoffer is an author and senior fellow in the Religious, Liberty & Public Life program at the Discovery Institute….he currently lives on Mercer Island, Washington, with his wife and five children.
It can’t possibly be this you objected to.

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.

Previous Posts

Another Blog To Enjoy!!!Thank you for visiting Kingdom of Priests. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy:
Kabballah Counseling
Happy Reading! ...

Animal Wisdom: The Voice of the SerpentOur family watched Jaws together the other evening -- which, in case you're wondering, I regard as responsible parenting since our kids are basically too young to be genuinely scared by the film. The whole rest of the next day, two-year-old Saul ...

Reading Wesley Smith: Why the Darwin Debate MattersIf the intelligent-design side in the evolution debate doesn't receive the support you might expect from people who should be allies, that may be because they haven't grasped why the whole thing matters so urgently. I got an email recently from ...

The Mission of the JewsDon't miss my essay over at First Things on the mission of the Jews to the world. This, I think, the key idea that the Jewish community needs to absorb at this very unusual cultural moment, for the time is so, so right. Non-Jews are waiting for ...

Darwin at the Mountains of Madness: Evolution & the OccultOf all the regrettable cultural forces that Darwinism helped unleash, perhaps the most surprising and seemingly unlikely is its role in sparking the creation of modern occultism. Charles Darwin himself could not have been less interested in the ...